Posted on 12/05/2010 6:14:57 PM PST by RnMomof7
............The Historical Evidence
The Roman Catholic Church claims that this doctrine, like all of their other distinctive doctrines, has the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (contra unanimen consensum Patrum).[10] They argue that what they teach concerning the Immaculate Conception has been the historic belief of the Christian Church since the very beginning. As Ineffabilis Deus puts it,
The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God… has ever held as divinely revealed and as contained in the deposit of heavenly revelation this doctrine concerning the original innocence of the august Virgin… and thus has never ceased to explain, to teach and to foster this doctrine age after age in many ways and by solemn acts.[11]
However, the student of church history will quickly discover that this is not the case. The earliest traces of this doctrine appear in the middle ages when Marian piety was at its bloom. Even at this time, however, the acceptance of the doctrine was far from universal. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the immaculate conception. The Franciscans (who affirmed the doctrine) and the Dominicans (who denied it, and of whom Aquinas was one) argued bitterly over whether this doctrine should be accepted, with the result that the pope at the time had to rule that both options were acceptable and neither side could accuse the other of heresy (ironic that several centuries later, denying this doctrine now results in an anathema from Rome).
When we go further back to the days of the early church, however, the evidence becomes even more glaring. For example, the third century church father Origen of Alexandria taught in his treatise Against Celsus (3:62 and 4:40) that that the words of Genesis 3:16 applies to every woman without exception. He did not exempt Mary from this. As church historian and patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly points out,
Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she [Mary] needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2.35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified.”[12]
Also, it must be noted that it has been often pointed out that Jesus’ rebuke of Mary in the wedding of Cana (John 2:1-12) demonstrates that she is in no wise perfect or sinless. Mark Shea scoffs at this idea that Mary is “sinfully pushing him [Jesus] to do theatrical wonders in John 2,” arguing that “there is no reason to think [this] is true.”[13] However, if we turn to the writings of the early church fathers, we see that this is precisely how they interpreted Mary’s actions and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke of her. In John Chrysostom’s twenty-first homily on the gospel of John (where he exegetes the wedding of Cana), he writes,
For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matt. xii.48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion… He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.[14]
Now why on earth would Jesus care for the salvation of Mary’s soul at this point in time if she was already “preventatively” saved through having been immaculately conceived, as was claimed earlier? That does not make any sense, whatsoever. Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrus agrees with John Chrysostom in saying that the Lord Jesus rebuked Mary during the wedding at Cana. In chapter two of his Dialogues, he writes,
If then He was made flesh, not by mutation, but by taking flesh, and both the former and the latter qualities are appropriate to Him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confounded, but remained unimpaired. And as long as we hold thus we shall perceive too the harmony of the Evangelists, for while the one proclaims the divine attributes of the one only begotten—the Lord Christ—the other sets forth His human qualities. So too Christ our Lord Himself teaches us, at one time calling Himself Son of God and at another Son of man: at one time He gives honour to His Mother as to her that gave Him birth [Luke 2:52]; at another He rebukes her as her Lord [John 2:4].[15] And then there is Augustine of Hippo, whom many Roman Catholic apologists attempt to appeal to for their belief in the immaculate conception. They like to quote a portion of chapter 42 of his treatise, On Nature and Grace, where Augustine states,
We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.[16]
However, those who quote this passage miss the point of what Augustine is trying to communicate. He was trying to refute the Pelagian heretics (who were the ones who were claiming that Mary—among other biblical characters—were sinless, since they denied the depravity of man). The article explaining Augustine’s view of Mary on Allan Fitzgerald’s Augustine Through the Ages helps clear up misconceptions regarding this passage:
His [Augustine's] position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question… Since medieval times this passage [from Nature and Grace] has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it.[17]
This same article then goes on to demonstrate that Augustine did in fact believe that Mary received the stain of original sin from her parents:
His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He… specifies in [Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 5.15.52]… that the body of Mary “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.”[18]
As can be seen here, these and many other early church fathers[19] did not regard Mary as being sinless or immaculately conceived. It is quite clear that the annals of church history testify that Rome cannot claim that this belief is based upon the “unanimous consent of the fathers,” since the belief that Mary was sinless started out among Pelagian heretics during the fifth century and did not become an acceptable belief until at least the beginning of the middle ages.
Conclusion
As has been demonstrated here, neither scripture nor church history support the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary was sinless by virtue of having been immaculately conceived. In fact, Rome did not even regard this as an essential part of the faith until the middle of the nineteenth century. This should cause readers to pause and question why on earth Rome would anathematize Christians for disbelieving in a doctrine that was absent from the early church (unless one wants to side with the fifth century Pelagians) and was considered even by Rome to be essential for salvation until a century and a half ago. Because Rome said so? But their reasons for accepting this doctrine in the first place are so demonstrably wrong. After all, they claim that this was held as divinely revealed from the very beginning, even though four and a half centuries’ worth of patristic literature proves otherwise. This ought to be enough to cast doubt not only on Rome’s claims regarding Mariology, but their claims to authority on matters of faith and morals in general.
Do you mean her Assumption or Dormiiton? As for it being recent better brush up on your history of Christian beliefs.
Most of what Jesus is recorded to have said is included in the New Testament.
However, the Law was still in effect until His death and resurrection. The new covenant did not take effect until that time. Therefore, most of the events recorded in the gospels, correctly quality as Old Testament occurrences as Jesus was in the process of fulfilling the law.
Jesus is also God. The trinity and all that.
**Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant — carrying Christ within her womb. Of course, she was pure and sinless. Why would anyone ever doubt that?**
That’s carnal interpretation of scripture. The mother’s blood does not flow through the veins and arteries of the fetus.
Maybe you might interpret this scripture: “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared me”.
WHOOO prepared the body?
IMO, that passage has the soul of Christ speaking to Almighty God.
Mary was the most fortunate virgin to be blessed with being used to HELP bring forth the body. She did not remain a virgin after the birth of the Christ child (welding goggles on). She did NOT create more of God. That’s not possible. The part she helped bring forth suffered and died. God is a Spirit, and cannot die.
RnMomof7, you shouldn’t start threads threads like this. There is a college in South Bend, IN, that is named in French, in reference to Mary, and has once again fielded a mediocre football team. Many RCs are not happy about that.
The same thing, odd that. And what flavor of Presbyterian are you?
No Catholics do not believe Jesus sinned. The point was to show quoting scriptue only leads to a problem. Where the scripture said “All have sinned”.
You may understand Jesus did not sin as I do, but the point showed how special understanding other than that scripture was needed and that is a point made against Catholic all the time yet here is a scripture only proponents says this.
David was a man after God’s own heart, but he was an adulterous murderer.
You are exactly right. And every one that God used was imperfect because all men are. And we know that because God tells us.
He gives us the grace to fulfilled what He has called us to.
Where’s the trashing?
Is there something in there that is not supported by Scripture?
I don’t think the question is what God COULD do but what He DID do. What does the record of Mary’s life and the fact that she died as others died tell us?
Is she called sinless? Did she age and die as did Adam and Eve? Did she have to make a sin offering at the temple?
Could she give birth to a sinless son? Yes as the child was produced when “Holy Spirit” overshadowed Mary. Thus no requirement that Mary herself be sinless and no indication in the Scriptures that she was.
Do NOT carry arguments from one thread to another. That is flame baiting.
In the bible, it talks about the sin of the Fathers, not the mothers.
Jesus “father” was God (Elohim). Jesus was immaculately created without the normal process.
Mary (and Joseph) both were descended of the “correct” tribe.
In fact, Rahab was a in Jesus’ lineage.
Since God specially dispensated Jesus’s birth, I am sure “supposed issue” of how can a sinful being bear a sinless offspring does not apply.
If you believe ALL of Jesus’s traits must be derived from Mary, then must not Mary then be fully God Also? See how the logic breaks down!
let’s not assume Jesus’s creation must “play” by the rules of a normal man...
If we don’t then we have to “create” doctrine to justify our inferences......
"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8,9.
The RCC has never saved anyone. The finished work of Christ and that alone, saves. The RCC has no more power over you, if you are saved, than a bloviating, threatening bully on a playground. All the threats and 'knowledge' and 'power' are figments of men's imaginations in a desperate attempt to keep the ignorant from seeing and believing the truth of God's word. Whom the Son sets free is free indeed. God is not mocked. Especially by religion.
Only Jesus was without sin. Everyone else is human.
Sounds a bit odd like that.
Everyone is human. "Like his brothers in every way, yet without sin."
You realize your post 129 makes the point of intersession. If Mary simple prodding of her son Jesus caused him to do something he originally did not intend to do and yet did it. That is Love for ones Mother and speaks wonders to have Mary petitioning Jesus for you.
The "Immaculate Conception" was made up out of whole cloth.
Wasn't "The Immaculate Conception" the conception of Jesus? To my knowledge only Jesus and Adam were created without the introduction of male and female sex cells (sperm and ovum).
I thought the "Immaculate" part of Jesus' Immaculate Conception was the fact that Mary "had not known man."
As far as Mary being "full of Grace," any forgiven sinner can tell describe the sensation of being "full of Grace."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.